Loading document...
18th July 2025 Ref 25/90265/B Residential Design Guide 2021 (“RDG”) Erection of single storey extension to rear of existing dwelling and widening of vehicular access at 1 Bradda View, Ballakillowey, Colby, Isle of Man IM9 4BE. Please accept this as our written response to the notification received on the #### that an appeal has been lodged against the planning permission granted on the 20.06.205 in respect of the above application for the erection of single storey extension to the rear of existing dwelling and widening of vehicular access at 1 Bradda View, Ballakillowey, Colby, Isle of Man IM9 4BE. Reference is made to the Residential Design Guide July 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “RDG”). As noted in this document, ‘the aim of this guidance….to work together to improve the quality of our built environment…encourage creative, innovative and locally distinctive designs that respond to the changing needs of our communities’.
In preparation of this current application, we feel it important to note that because of the refusal of previous application 24/00415/B (noted incorrectly in 3.1 of the Planning Officers report as having been approved), when carefully considering this current application, we ensured we had taken on board:
As a result, rather than be ‘creative and locally distinctive’, we were keen to ensure that this application is in-keeping with para 3.2.2 of the 2016 RDG which also states “extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building.” as well as 4.2 of the 2021 RDG, “fits with the existing property” and “appears subordinate to the existing house, i.e. appear as smaller addition as rather than being overbearing features dominating the existing house.” as the extension is both lower in height and smaller in size than the existing part of the house that runs adjacent to the Ballkillowey Road. As a result, the extension has no overbearing features that will dominate the existing house.
We simply seek to find a modestly suitable way in which 1 Bradda View can be enhanced in a sustainable yet sympathetic way to ensure that this almost 40 year old, 3-bedroom bungalow can reasonably be altered to better house families in accordance with more current and future housing demands in terms of modernising the property in a way that sympathetically retains key elements that reflect the character of the property where possible but also has no adverse impact on the street scene and minimal negative impact on private amenity. We are ourselves a young Manx family of five with two working parents and three children in fulltime education. The design guide refers to ‘ensuring our properties contribute to making our Island an even better place to live and work’. The buildings in Bradda View Estate are all now over 30 years old and most have had some form of extension or alteration.
As above, we were notified that the application had been reviewed and that the Planning Officer’s recommendation was to permit the application as made on the 20th June 2025.
We were notified on 11th July 2025 the that our neighbours in No 3 Bradda View had submitted an appeal to the permission as granted.
To address the concerns made by our neighbours in No 3 Bradda View in their appeal letter, please consider our comments as follows:
The proposal is for an extension with a pitched roof that will be lower in height than the existing building. As the two dwellings are currently configured, our garage is next to and looks directly into No 3’s lounge, a primary habitual use room.
The bedroom of No 3 referred to in the appeal sits further back from their lounge and as shown in the photo below, a shadow is cast on the window of the bedroom by their own lounge due to the orientation of their property. The below photo also shows that even at 18:52, no adverse negative impact on overshadowing would be created by extending the rear of No 1 with a lower ridge height than the current building as currently proposed.
In addition, the following photograph was taken at 20:55 on 14th July 2025 to demonstrate the shadowing when the sun is at it’s most Westerly point and therefore of maximum potential impact to No 3 Bradda View. This evidences that only during late evening in mid-summer, a shadow is already cast by No 1 Bradda View on the bedroom window of No 3 identified in their appeal letter. We cannot see how a lower, rear extension could therefore have any negative impact in terms of overshadowing on No 3.
Consequently, we agree with the Planning Officers assessment (6.3.3) having visited the site that, “it is considered that the neighbours would not be disadvantaged from any loss of light over and above existing levels given the properties orientation”.
Whilst we respect the fact that our neighbour is partially sighted, this should not bear any relevance to the application.
The current orientation of the properties is that No 1 is West of No 3 so the impact of loss of light or overshadowing of No 1 on No 3 can only be considered as a potential issue in the evening and during the summer months.
The configuration and orientation of No 3 means that a shadow is already cast on the bedroom window of No 3 by its own most westerly side of the house. This can be shown in photo 1 above.
In addition, RDG - 7.0 Impact on Neighbouring Properties
The current configuration of our two properties means that the garage of No 1 is immediately next to the lounge of No 3. The distance between these two rooms is over two meters less than the proposed distance between the bedroom referred to in the appeal by the owners of No 3 and the extension in our application.
The roofline of the extension is proposed to be lower than the roofline of the existing garage. As shown in the photographs below taken at different times of the evening a shadow is already cast by the roof of No 1 over the bedroom window of No 3. The proposed extension cannot therefore have a negative impact on the same bedroom window of No 3 as there is already loss of light / overshadowing.
In addition, as noted in the planning approval notice, there is substantial hedging between the two properties which is mostly on No 3 side.
In contradiction to our neighbours appeal and based on the some of the key points noted above, we therefore believe that the Planning Officer did give due consideration to potential loss of light and overshadowing. Point 6.3.2 of the Planning Officer’s Report addressed this concern, “….the neighbours would not be disadvantaged from any loss of light over and above the existing levels
given the properties orientation” (emphasis is with regard to the 25 degree check as the extension is not to the south of the neighbouring property).
No 1 already has a utility door to the rear of the house. Moving the door (whist still retaining it at the rear of the house) will have no impact on the use of the door as an access point.
The bedroom window of No 3 is not visible from No 1 due to their own substantial hedgerows. The addition of a utility door is less impactful than the three clear windows that look directly on to the lounge of No 3 along the side of our garage so any impact of loss of privacy could only be subordinate to what currently exists. The existing fence and mature hedgerows between the properties restrict any ability to view the bedroom window of No 3 from No 1. When drafting the application, we were particularly concerned with any concern our neighbours in No 3 could have and so pro-actively chose not to include any windows to the East of the extension, which would actually be in keeping with the current build. We simply included a utility door as one already exists to the rear of the house. In addition, we would expect to use frosted glass on the utility door.
This is addressed in point 6.2.2 of the Planning Officers Report, although we do assume that their reference to the rear extension being visible from a public vantage point refers only to any vehicles travelling down the Ballakillowey Road. This is on the basis that the extension is not visible from any other vantage point. It cannot be seen from the road within Bradda View Estate so has no impact at all on this element of the street scene.
The summerhouse does not sit in the same place as the proposed extension and the materials used on the summerhouse are not the same as the current house (unlike the proposed extension) so cannot be compared when considering any visual impact. In addition, the existing summerhouse is a temporary structure, and its dimensions are such that no planning permission was required for its erection. The existence of the summerhouse should therefore be irrelevant for the purposes of this planning application.
We do not believe the extension will have an adverse impact and cannot be visually overdominating on the view looking down Ballakillowey Road on the basis that:
These interpretations are further supported in the RDG: 4.2 RDG Potential Visual Impact of Extension of the Existing House 4.2.1 …”whether the design of the extension fits with the existing property” the same materials will be used ensuring the character of the property is retained and visual impact minimal. 7.9 – ‘Corner plots…extensions in these locations should not be visually over-dominating or disrupt the sense of openness between the properties and the street scene.’
1 Bradda View, whilst a ‘corner plot’ is an end of road property as far as Bradda View is concerned as it is situated on the entrance to the estate only. It also sits on Ballakillowey Road which has a very different and inconsistent lay of houses.
Whilst a corner plot, the houses within Bradda View and on Ballakillowey Road are significantly different. There is no impact on the sense of openness between the properties and the street
^{}[]
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
